The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy. 

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.  HUH?  For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs.  Caposkia is my name. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress.  Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress. 

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:jcgadfly

TGBaker wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I'm going to stop watching after this note on the fourth installment and see what people have to say, because this guy is quickly losing credibility with me.  right at the beginning he questions an inconsistency in scripture... he asks; "what day did Jesus die on... Did he die the day before the Passover meal was eaten as john explicitly espresses, or did he die after the Passover meal as mark explicitly states?"

I read the text document of this debate. Ehrman got his ass handed to him...once again!

Here's the kicker, Lee.

Did you think that Ehrman got his ass handed to him before or after you read the transcript?

This seems the classic waste of time.

 

 

You think it's a waste of time because your frustrated that you have failed to get me to believe as you do. I know your spirit! anti-christ!

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:TGBaker

Lee2216 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I'm going to stop watching after this note on the fourth installment and see what people have to say, because this guy is quickly losing credibility with me.  right at the beginning he questions an inconsistency in scripture... he asks; "what day did Jesus die on... Did he die the day before the Passover meal was eaten as john explicitly espresses, or did he die after the Passover meal as mark explicitly states?"

I read the text document of this debate. Ehrman got his ass handed to him...once again!

Here's the kicker, Lee.

Did you think that Ehrman got his ass handed to him before or after you read the transcript?

This seems the classic waste of time.

 

 

You think it's a waste of time because your frustrated that you have failed to get me to believe as you do. I know your spirit! anti-christ!

No I am not frustrated DUH. I have a complete memory of when I processed the same thoughts as you.  I think that it s a waste of time when the issues are not discussed directly and are side tracked by digressive statements of belief. 


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:caposkia

Lee2216 wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I'm going to stop watching after this note on the fourth installment and see what people have to say, because this guy is quickly losing credibility with me.  right at the beginning he questions an inconsistency in scripture... he asks; "what day did Jesus die on... Did he die the day before the Passover meal was eaten as john explicitly espresses, or did he die after the Passover meal as mark explicitly states?"

I read the text document of this debate. Ehrman got his ass handed to him...once again!

Compare the time the Gospel of John gives for the passover and death of Jesus with that of the other three gospels.  It's your scripture not mine.

All four Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on a Friday afternoon, that the women rested on a Saturday, and that the empty tomb was discovered early on a Sunday morning.  However, the Gospels differ as to whether the Feast of Passover was on Friday or on Saturday in the year Jesus was killed; thus they provide conflicting evidence as to exactly which calendar year it could have been. According to astronomical calculations, the 15th of Nisan in the Jewish lunar calendar fell on a Thursday evening / Friday in AD 27, while it fell on a Friday evening / Saturday in AD 30 and AD 33.

Problem: The Last Supper was or wasn't the Passover meal
Verses: Mark 14:12-18, John 19:14-15, others; Status: Serious

According to the synoptics, the Last Supper appears to have been the Passover meal. On the other hand, John's gospel seems to tell us that Jesus died before the Passover meal.

Synoptics: the Last Supper was the Passover meal

It's necessary to quote Mark at some length to show that, for him, the Last Supper was the Passover. This is Mark 14:12-18:

And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?" And he sent two of his disciples and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us." And the disciples set out and went to the city and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.

And when it was evening, he came with the twelve. And as they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me." (ESV)

These verses certainly give the impression that the meal being eaten is the Passover meal. The disciples ask where the Passover meal is to be eaten; they go there; they prepare; later Jesus arrives; and they do indeed eat a meal. The meaning seems obvious.

Matthew 26:17-21 is almost identical. Meanwhile, Luke 22:8 is even more explicit that Jesus fully expected to eat the Passover meal:

So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it." (ESV)

It's mysterious why Jesus would say this if he was fully aware that he was going to die before the Passover meal.

John: the Passover meal was still to come

John says that, as the Last Supper was getting started, Jesus sent Judas Iscariot away. This is John 13:27-30:

Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do quickly." Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. Some thought that, because Judas had the moneybag, Jesus was telling him, "Buy what we need for the feast," or that he should give something to the poor. So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night. (ESV)

This seems to imply that the group did not yet have what they needed for the Passover feast, which would mean the feast was yet to come. Further evidence for this is provided by John 18:28, where Jesus' accusers were delivering him to Pilate:

Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor's headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor's headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. (ESV)

Finally, John seems to explicitly say that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover. This is Pilate handing over Jesus, at John 19:14-15:

Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Behold your King!" They cried out, "Away with him, away with him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." (ESV)

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Lee2216

TGBaker wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I'm going to stop watching after this note on the fourth installment and see what people have to say, because this guy is quickly losing credibility with me.  right at the beginning he questions an inconsistency in scripture... he asks; "what day did Jesus die on... Did he die the day before the Passover meal was eaten as john explicitly espresses, or did he die after the Passover meal as mark explicitly states?"

I read the text document of this debate. Ehrman got his ass handed to him...once again!

Here's the kicker, Lee.

Did you think that Ehrman got his ass handed to him before or after you read the transcript?

This seems the classic waste of time.

 

 

You think it's a waste of time because your frustrated that you have failed to get me to believe as you do. I know your spirit! anti-christ!

No I am not frustrated DUH. I have a complete memory of when I processed the same thoughts as you.  I think that it s a waste of time when the issues are not discussed directly and are side tracked by digressive statements of belief. 

 

 

I've researched all possible avenues for many years and I always come back to Christianity as the most plausible. So it's a waste of my time to discuss issues that I've discussed many times in the past. Anyone with any logic and reason would find Christianity to be the absolute truth.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:TGBaker

Lee2216 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I'm going to stop watching after this note on the fourth installment and see what people have to say, because this guy is quickly losing credibility with me.  right at the beginning he questions an inconsistency in scripture... he asks; "what day did Jesus die on... Did he die the day before the Passover meal was eaten as john explicitly espresses, or did he die after the Passover meal as mark explicitly states?"

I read the text document of this debate. Ehrman got his ass handed to him...once again!

Here's the kicker, Lee.

Did you think that Ehrman got his ass handed to him before or after you read the transcript?

This seems the classic waste of time.

 

 

You think it's a waste of time because your frustrated that you have failed to get me to believe as you do. I know your spirit! anti-christ!

So Lee, did you read the transcript thinking "Ehrman got his ass handed to him" or did you make that determination after you read it?

TGBaker doesn't need to be an anti-Christ - you're doing a great job on your own.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:TGBaker

Lee2216 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I'm going to stop watching after this note on the fourth installment and see what people have to say, because this guy is quickly losing credibility with me.  right at the beginning he questions an inconsistency in scripture... he asks; "what day did Jesus die on... Did he die the day before the Passover meal was eaten as john explicitly espresses, or did he die after the Passover meal as mark explicitly states?"

I read the text document of this debate. Ehrman got his ass handed to him...once again!

Here's the kicker, Lee.

Did you think that Ehrman got his ass handed to him before or after you read the transcript?

This seems the classic waste of time.

 

 

You think it's a waste of time because your frustrated that you have failed to get me to believe as you do. I know your spirit! anti-christ!

No I am not frustrated DUH. I have a complete memory of when I processed the same thoughts as you.  I think that it s a waste of time when the issues are not discussed directly and are side tracked by digressive statements of belief. 

 

 

I've researched all possible avenues for many years and I always come back to Christianity as the most plausible. So it's a waste of my time to discuss issues that I've discussed many times in the past. Anyone with any logic and reason would find Christianity to be the absolute truth.

I doubt that you have searched all avenues. You are not addressing these avenues. You sound like several of my fundamentalist professors back in bible College... These questions have all been addressed.  I would ask well can I have the address?  I got A's on all of my papers with no refutations because there aren't any apart from the side step or two shuffle. What a dance is done to remain in the darkness. Or is it a squiming? But back to the Passover of John vs the Synoptics of which you questioned Erhman's mentioning.  A typical outline is posted above. Christianity is not the absolute truth it is not even truth if you can't deal with your own scripture and address their conflicts without smoke and card shuffling. You can't address them so you avoid them with non-supported claims. This is what I meant as a waste of time. Put up or shut up as the saying goes.  It need not be a nasty discussion but if you want to come into a den of thieves and flash you jewelry you oughta have the means of defense to keep from being robbed. Of course there is no point because it appears to be all costume jewelry. We just want to authenticate it.  If not that is very evangelical of you.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Anyone with any logic

Quote:
Anyone with any logic and reason would find Christianity to be the absolute truth.

No, anyone with any logic and reason would find a way to test a claim before they go around selling it or buying it.

Virgin births do not happen. YOU LOSE

Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis to become a zombie god. YOU LOSE

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So Lee, did

jcgadfly wrote:


So Lee, did you read the transcript thinking "Ehrman got his ass handed to him" or did you make that determination after you read it?

TGBaker doesn't need to be an anti-Christ - you're doing a great job on your own.

Thanks jcgadfly. You can call me Tommy (if you like the Who) or Tom if ya don't.  In fact I do not mind the 666 thingy either that is more Rolling Stones-like ain't it?  keep up the great comments. I simply want answers to the failure of scripture being inerrant, infallible, inspired or even a little bit of history. The self appointed defenders of that Great Faith seem to be void of the kerygma or that good old religion. I thought they were supposed to help us see the Light and save our souls from damnation. Ain't that evangelism?  No it is not for it has never been Christ-like.  Duh now I see you're point he is doing a good job with the anti-christ thingy. Wow ya gotta spell it out to me bro cus I'm kinda slow.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Anyone

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Anyone with any logic and reason would find Christianity to be the absolute truth.

No, anyone with any logic and reason would find a way to test a claim before they go around selling it or buying it.

Virgin births do not happen. YOU LOSE

Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis to become a zombie god. YOU LOSE

 

 

I am afraid that its part of that christian meme thing, It is absolute truth because I believe it is from god so that is all I need to say. I just wanted to dispense with the inqdequacy of the scriptures to support such claims since it is from such fiction that these memes originate.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: But back to

TGBaker wrote:

But back to the Passover of John vs the Synoptics of which you questioned Erhman's mentioning.

"To begin, we see that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke state that it was the first day of unleavened bread. In Matthew 'Feast of ' is not in the original text and Mark and Luke state specifically that it was the day of unleavened bread in which the Passover Lamb was slain. This is explained by understanding that unleavened bread was also eaten with the Passover meal on the fourteenth day of the first month (Ex. 12:Cool. Therefore, it was the first day in which unleavened bread was eaten. However, following the one-day Feast of the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread continued as a seven-day feast from the fifteenth of the month until the twenty first day (Lev. 23:4-8). During this feast an offering made by fire was done each day. Since this would be a total of eight days, the Lord's Sabbath would also occur during this time. Therefore, not only would the usual sacrifice be done on the Sabbath but also the one done during the seven-day feast. This explains why John calls this Sabbath a 'High Day' (John 19:31). Furthermore, we need to understand that sometimes all days were called 'the Passover' (Luke 2:41; 22:1; Acts 12:3-4) or the seven days were the 'Passover Week' (John 18:28; 19:14). Also, the Sabbath, the day of rest, was on a Saturday. Concerning John 19:14, "the day of Preparation" does not mean the day of preparing for the Passover. In the first century "the day of Preparation" meant "the day to prepare for the Sabbath" -- in other words, Friday. It is this usage which is relevant in John 19:14. Thus, "the day of Preparation of the Passover" means "the Friday of Passover week." John is referring to the Preparation Day before the Sabbath and states this clearly in 19:31. By this reasoning all the gospels will be in agreement. Therefore, the Last Supper was Passover night, and Preparation Day of the Sabbath was the next day in which Jesus was crucified."

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:TGBaker wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

But back to the Passover of John vs the Synoptics of which you questioned Erhman's mentioning.

"To begin, we see that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke state that it was the first day of unleavened bread. In Matthew 'Feast of ' is not in the original text and Mark and Luke state specifically that it was the day of unleavened bread in which the Passover Lamb was slain. This is explained by understanding that unleavened bread was also eaten with the Passover meal on the fourteenth day of the first month (Ex. 12:Cool. Therefore, it was the first day in which unleavened bread was eaten. However, following the one-day Feast of the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread continued as a seven-day feast from the fifteenth of the month until the twenty first day (Lev. 23:4-8). During this feast an offering made by fire was done each day. Since this would be a total of eight days, the Lord's Sabbath would also occur during this time. Therefore, not only would the usual sacrifice be done on the Sabbath but also the one done during the seven-day feast. This explains why John calls this Sabbath a 'High Day' (John 19:31). Furthermore, we need to understand that sometimes all days were called 'the Passover' (Luke 2:41; 22:1; Acts 12:3-4) or the seven days were the 'Passover Week' (John 18:28; 19:14). Also, the Sabbath, the day of rest, was on a Saturday. Concerning John 19:14, "the day of Preparation" does not mean the day of preparing for the Passover. In the first century "the day of Preparation" meant "the day to prepare for the Sabbath" -- in other words, Friday. It is this usage which is relevant in John 19:14. Thus, "the day of Preparation of the Passover" means "the Friday of Passover week." John is referring to the Preparation Day before the Sabbath and states this clearly in 19:31. By this reasoning all the gospels will be in agreement. Therefore, the Last Supper was Passover night, and Preparation Day of the Sabbath was the next day in which Jesus was crucified.

 

Very unconvincing harmonization. Jesus eats the passover meal in Matthew, Luke and mark but not John.  The passover lambs were already slaughtered. For john the lambs for passover are slaughtered while Jesus is. John has the 14 of Nisan while the synoptics have the 15th of Nisan.

Mark's explicit claim that the Last Supper was a Passover meal is contraindicated by his statement that Joseph of Arimathea bought a shroud for Jesus on Good Friday; which would not have been possible if it were a festival day.Mark's explicit claim that the Last Supper was a Passover meal is contraindicated by his statement that Joseph of Arimathea bought a shroud for Jesus on Good Friday; which would not have been possible if it were a festival day.

 

here is what another evangelical says

The time of day of Jesus' crucifixion is difficult to determine.  Mark's Gospel seems to give one time while the Gospel of John appears to have a different chronology.  Such historical questions about the Gospels are difficult to answer simply because the Gospels are not intended to give that kind of historical information.  On one level, it is entirely appropriate to maintain strongly that the Gospels are historical in nature. That is, they are grounded in actual historical events whether or not we have access to the details of those events.  Otherwise the Bible is little more than cosmic myth.  However, that does not mean that the writers were trying to recount historical detail in the same way that we in the 21st century Western world would expect historical detail to be given, which is what creates a problem for us as we ask historical questions.

This problem is compounded by the modern idea of absolute biblical inerrancy, which contends that any feature of the biblical text no matter how seemingly insignificant must be 100% accurate in all of its details in order for any part of the Bible to be true. While many proponents of biblical inerrancy want to deny it, that position grows out of a modern scientific rationalism that will only affirm something to be “true” that can be grounded in provable, or declared, “fact” (see The Modern Inerrancy Debate).  However, the Bible simply will not yield to that kind of rationalism, whether it is atheistic scientific rationalism or Christian apologetic rationalism.

None of that makes the question of the timing of the crucifixion irrelevant; it only means that there may not be a satisfactory historical answer in Scripture, which is why the issue is problematic and debated. One aspect of the problem lies in what is known as the “Synoptic Problem.” This simply expresses the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the “synoptic” Gospels) do not always agree on various details of the Gospel tradition while at other times they match word for word (see The Gospels and The Synoptic Problem). The fact that John’s Gospel differs significantly from the Synoptics in the chronology of Jesus’ life, including even the day on which Jesus died, further complicates the issue

Here is a short chart comparing the time references surrounding the crucifixion in the Gospels: 

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

27:1 When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people conferred together against Jesus in order to bring about his death.

15:1 As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council.

22:66 When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, gathered together, and they brought him to their council.

18:28 Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate's headquarters. It was early in the morning.

 

 

 

19:13 When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside... 14 Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon.

 

15:25 It was nine o'clock in the morning when they crucified him. 

 

 

27:45 From noon on, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon.

15:33 When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon.

23:44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon,

 

27:46 And about three o'clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

15:34 At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

 

 

27:57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus.

15:42 When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath,

23:54 It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning.

19:31 Since it was the day of Preparation,… 19:38 After these things, Joseph of Arimathea,…

27:62 The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate…

16:2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.

24:1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared.

20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb...

A quick reading of this easily reveals that it is Mark and John that do not agree. According to Mark, Jesus was crucified at nine o'clock in the morning and died shortly after his so-called "cry of dereliction" at three o'clock in the afternoon.  However, John's Gospel still has Jesus before Pilate at noon, with no other time frame given for the actual crucifixion.  All four accounts agree that Jesus was dead by evening of that day. 

There is virtually no way historically to reconcile these accounts relating to the time of the crucifixion.  However, if we move beyond presuppositions that want to force the Bible to speak to our modern questions of absolute historical accuracy, we may have other ways to read the text in light of how it was written and how it was intended to be heard.

 

All this suggests that the purpose and organizing principle behind the Gospels is not historical and chronological, but theological. Another way to say this is that the historical details serve the theological purposes of the writers. That does not mean that they invented history. It only means that, contrary to our scientifically conditioned perspective, the details were not as important as the message.

So, for example,  In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus and the disciples ate Passover together the evening before the arrest in the Garden and Mark tells us that Jesus was crucified at nine the following morning. Yet in John's Gospel Jesus stands before Pilate at noon before Passover, the very time when observant Jews would begin the preparations for Passover by removing leaven from the house. John presents Jesus’ death against the background of the Passover, with the crucifixion occurring at about the time the Passover lambs were being killed in the Temple. When we remember that the first Passover was the beginning of the Exodus event, the defining revelation of God in Jewish history, John’s linking of the crucifixion with Passover in this way becomes a powerful theological affirmation of what God is doing in human history in these events. John’s Gospel is not so much concerned with chronology as it is concerned with helping us understand the significance of this event in light of God’s revelation throughout Israel’s history.  He is, in fact, writing theology, not history.

The author of John wants Jesus to be the Passover Lamb and thus the difference in chronology from another evangelical:

John's gospel is different from the other three in the New Testament. That fact has been recognized since the early church itself. Already by the year 200, John's gospel was called the spiritual gospel precisely because it told the story of Jesus in symbolic ways that differ sharply at times from the other three. For example, Jesus dies on a different day in John's gospel than in Matthew, Mark and Luke.... Whereas in the three synoptic gospels Jesus actually eats a passover meal before he dies, in John's gospel he doesn't. The last supper is actually eaten before the beginning of passover. So that the sequence of events leading up to the actual crucifixion are very different for John's gospel. And one has to look at it in say, why is the story so different? How do we account for these differences in terms of the way the story-telling developed? And the answer becomes fairly clear when we realize that Jesus has had the last supper a day before so that he's hanging on the cross during the day of preparation before the beginning of Passover.

So here's the scene in John's gospel: on the day leading up to Passover, and Passover will commence at 6 o'clock with the evening meal, on the day leading up to that Passover meal is the day when all the lambs are slaughtered and everyone goes to the temple to get their lamb for the passover meal. In Jerusalem this would have meant thousands of lambs being slaughtered all at one time. And in John's gospel that's the day on which Jesus is crucified. So that quite literally the dramatic scene in John's gospel has Jesus hanging on the cross while the lambs are being slaughtered for passover. John's gospel is forcing us, dramatically at least, through the storytelling mode, to think of Jesus as a passover lamb. Jesus doesn't eat a passover meal, Jesus is the passover meal, at least within the Christian mind in the way that John tells the story.

Now this theme of the Lamb of God, the Passover symbolism, actually is shot through the entirety of John's gospel. From the very first scene of John's gospel when Jesus enters the story for the first time, he does so by coming to John the Baptist to be baptized. And when Jesus enters, John sees him coming and looks and says, "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." So the whole story is now bracketed by this one motif, the Lamb of God. And of course that's the kind of symbolism that would eventually become one of the most profound and dominant in all of Christian theological tradition. Later on we will find just that one image a lamb showing up in all kinds of Christian art from the catacombs to the great mosaics at Ravenna because in just that small little capsule form we have a whole theological tradition wrapped up. It's a theological statement about the significance of the death of Jesus.

Wiki:

In the Jewish calendar, each day runs from sunset to sunset, and hence the

Last Supper

(on the Thursday evening), and Jesus's crucifixion (on Friday afternoon), both fell on the same day. In John, this day was the 14th of Nisan in the Jewish calendar; that is the day on the afternoon of which the Passover victims were sacrificed in the Temple, which was also known as the Day of Preparation. The Passover meal itself would then have been eaten on the Friday evening (i.e. the next day in Jewish terms), which would also have been a Sabbath. In the Synoptic accounts, the Last Supper is a Passover meal, and so Jesus's trial and crucifixion must have taken place during the night time and following afternoon of the festival itself, the 15th of Nisan. In favour of the Synoptic chronology is that in the earliest Christian traditions relating to the Last Supper in the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians, there is a clear link between Passion of Jesus, the Last Supper and the Passover lamb. In favor of John's chronology is the near universal modern scholarly agreement that the Synoptic accounts of a formal trial before the Sanhedrin on a festival day are historically impossible. By contrast, an informal investigation by the High Priest and his cronies (without witnesses being called), as told by John, is both historically possible in an emergency on the day before a festival, and accords with the external evidence from Rabbinic sources that Jesus was put to death on the Day of Preparation for the Passover. Astronomical reconstruction of the Jewish Lunar calendar tends to favor John's chronology, in that the only year during the governorship of Pontius Pilate when the 15th Nisan is calculated as falling on a Wednesday/Thursday was 27 CE, which appears too early as the year of the crucifixion, whereas the 14th of Nisan fell on a Thursday/Friday in both 30 CE and 33 CE.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:You think it's

Lee2216 wrote:

You think it's a waste of time because your frustrated that you have failed to get me to believe as you do. I know your spirit! anti-christ!

No.

People like yourself, only undermine the position you espouse, even more.

The problem is that everything you point to as evidence, is anecdotal.

Trying to bolster them, by certifying them as 'facts', only undermines your abilities at being objective. That much is very easy to see.

Folklore is legend.

Notes from people, are not facts.

Other religions equally certify their collections of 'notes' as 'facts', which obviously contradicts ancient christian folklore.

So, the only logical position, is that there is much controversy among the notes that are written throughout antiquity, as you are all in a pissing contest, with each other.

 

Lee2216 wrote:

I've researched all possible avenues for many years and I always come back to Christianity as the most plausible.

You agree with yourself.

Big deal.

What does that mean?

That your opinion changes the folklore into facts?

Lee2216 wrote:
So it's a waste of my time to discuss issues that I've discussed many times in the past.

Then it would be incredibly illogical for you to be here in the first place, and incredibly illogical for you to want to lecture people who are much happier in their knowledge.

Lee2216 wrote:
Anyone with any logic and reason would find Christianity to be the absolute truth.

Your statement is a non sequitur.

It's simply nonsensical, in the strongest sense of the word.

You would have your work cut out for you to prove the many accounts in the bible, are even possible, to begin with.

Which undermines you claim of what constitutes logic and reason.

Much like a mentally disturbed person in a straight jacket, claiming that the wards are crazy to have put him in a straight jacket.

Simply alleging that anyone with logic and reason would consider notes from people, as the absolute truth,  is not being very objective.

 

The beauty of living in the information age, is that it's only a Google search away, to find mountains of examples of people who consider the ancient folklores as nothing more than literature.

And it's a great thing, that our schools and legal systems, are secular, and ignore the uncivilized, ignorant, bigoted, barbaric and blood thirsty malevolance that's not only condoned, but instructed, for it's proponents to carry out, in those ancient anecdotes.

Simply put, many 1st world countries are simply more evolved than that, and have decided that those kinds of manifestos are uncivilized, and unlawful.

So, what were you saying about anyone with 'logic and reason'?...

(Top 10 atheist countries)

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=1428&bih=745&q=top+ten+atheist+countries&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&fp=e1d57483344a3fed

 

Who is out if touch with reality here?

Modern, 1st world governments, mandatory school systems, cutting edge science, and hundreds of millions of non religious people,..........or you?

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF, I've noticed in my

redneF, I've noticed in my last few posts that your politeness ways are rubbing off on me.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
It ain't pretty, bein' easy,

It ain't pretty, bein' easy, is it?  


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:It ain't

redneF wrote:

It ain't pretty, bein' easy, is it?  

I guess pretty is in the eye of the beholder. I likes it It is a bit smoky in here cool hat by the way.  At 56 it took my eyes a bit of strainin' to make out your icon Did he call you an anti-christ too?  I wonder if he is a Calvinist or Arminian?  Are you predestined by a loving gos to burn eternally for the fun of it. Ah, love.  Who are we the pot to decide what the potter should do with us. He makes some for special purposes like nonsensical dribble and other common to be broken and thrown out as he will nilly desires.

bein' easy huh?

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Bible Verse Battle

Isn't there a forum dedicated to arguing about bible errancy?

I like having that forum in place, so I don't stumble onto bible errancy threads. Easily the most pointless form of rational debate I can fathom


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Well, it's typically for

TGBaker wrote:

 Did he call you an anti-christ too?  I wonder if he is a Calvinist or Arminian?  Are you predestined by a loving gos to burn eternally for the fun of it. Ah, love.  Who are we the pot to decide what the potter should do with us. He makes some for special purposes like nonsensical dribble and other common to be broken and thrown out as he will nilly desires.

bein' easy huh?

Ad hominems mean nothing to me. I have to respect someone first, before their opinions mean anything to me. And people have to earn my respect. So, most people are sh1t outta luck.

It's typically for theists to speak out both sides of their mouths.

Preach how their faith is about love and then spew anger, intolerance and hatred out the other.

I don't expect any less of them.

 

Which is why I started that thread, pointing out very clearly, that the legendary god of the bible, if he were a reality, would epitomize a sociopath, with severe bipolar disorder.

It's not atypical, for people who care about someone, to be in denial of the mental health of the one they have feelings for.

People do it with pets, even.

So, these kinds of people who are out of touch with reality, are incredibly common. And their typical knee jerk reactions, are to attack everyone who tries to objectively demonstrate reality, and the reasons why they're not being, both practical, and objective.

There are simple cognitive behaviour tests to determine when people are deviating from reality. You can pick up brochures at your local drug store, most times, that are general guidelines for that sort of thing. Mainly to determine the soundness of mind, of elderly people in your family.

Eye tests are commonplace, but, 'reality checks' are not. So, it's completely predicatable, to see the levels of mental health issues we see even in 1st world countries.

George W. Bush, being a prime example.

Fortunately, the president is merely a figurehead. He could babble all he wanted to about a 'holy war', to appeal to the masses that helped elect him, when in reality, there was simply a geo-political war that was decided among nations.

A lot of theists, still somehow seem to think that America is a nation under a Christian god, when every indication is that our society is not structured in ways that are compatible with that idea.

Then there is the segment of theists, who see very clearly how America is secular, and are very angry about it, and are trying desperately to try and get a foothold in using the education system to indoctrinate their wild ideas, based on the ignorance of desert dwellers from over 2000 yrs ago, who held concepts that a modern young child would simply laugh at, of an immaterial brain in the sky, that made the universe, and everything in it, by no explicable means.

America, and other 1st world nations didn't evolve to be a world leaders in science, medicince and technology by taking that sort of poppycock seriously. They turned to practicality, and science.

It was only logical, and rational to do so.

Evolve, or regress.

 

What theists believe, and what reality is, were never mutally inclusive.

Just open up a history book, or even simpler, turn on the TV, or even look out your window.

What they 'believe' matters little to those who don't agree with them, It would only matter if they were in control...

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote:Isn't there

marcusfish wrote:

Isn't there a forum dedicated to arguing about bible errancy?

I like having that forum in place, so I don't stumble onto bible errancy threads. Easily the most pointless form of rational debate I can fathom

I think you are very right. But I was trying to show that Ehrman had a basis for his claims about the passover which was called into question concerning the debate.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 I'm hoping also you're not one that's going to look at a 1 in 1,000,000 statistic and excuse it by saying... "well, it still happened didn't it... or that means there's still a chance and therefore it happened without a creator."  If so, we need to take a different approach.

Cap, I don't think taking a different approach is gonna help you much here. No matter what evidence you give they will just give some excuse. Only the spirit of God will change their heart and enable them to see the truth.

 

AH, the coward's way out - you've got nothing so blame it on us..

oh come on now.  You're better than that jcgadfly.   At least I thought so.  I understood what he was saying to me.  It's obvious you don't and I wouldn't expect you to.  If you did, you wouldn't see it as a coward's way out, only an understanding of how things happen.  

I get what he's saying, and I'm just planting seeds.  The trick is, you'd have to open your heart to God in order for Him to change it.  It's all about choice.

jcgadfly wrote:

If the spirit of God chooses not to change my heart and enable me to see the truth, wouldn't that make him evil?

not unless you were choosing to open your heart to God and he refused you... but that would make Him a false god then because that goes against his promise in scripture. I have not seen an example of that happening.  I can tell you're not choosing to open your heart to God.  How can you open your heart to something you don't believe in?

All you want is someone who opened their heart to God and was rebuffed? Wow, that's too easy, cap. I look at such a one in the mirror daily. I was a follower of God until that moment. I couldn't continue to believe in someone who would say He loved me in his book and then lied about it to my soul.

This is where you and others will say "Oh that couldn't have been God" but the only ones who know for sure are those who were on the ends of my prayers.

All I understand is the same old "You have to agree with my arguments and evidence before I can present them to you. You have to accept my measurement of what I tell you is unmeasurable." that I'm still reading.

Why are you asking me to pay full price for the description of the car again? Especially now that you know that the dealer won't sell to me.

it never said you couldn't walk away

And I did - after i was told "no" by God. What's your point? Should I have stuck around to change the mind of an unchanging God? You sound like the Christians who respond to people who prayed for healing and didn't get it the first time with "Well, you just didn't have enough faith".

Or did you just not bother to read my post because what happened to me didn't match your view?

I read your post.  To what exactly did God say no to?  And are you sure he said no?  I think to rationalize this, i'd need to know more detail of exactly what happened, but then again, that might get to personal for a public forum, so we don't need to go there either.  An example of what happened is good enough.  

I wouldn't say you should have stuck around to "change the mind of an unchanging God" rather stuck around to comprehend why the answer was no and what was to come of it.  Sounds to me as if you got an answer, then chose to turn away from a God you know exists rather than not believing.  Am I wrong?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 I'm hoping also you're not one that's going to look at a 1 in 1,000,000 statistic and excuse it by saying... "well, it still happened didn't it... or that means there's still a chance and therefore it happened without a creator."  If so, we need to take a different approach.

Cap, I don't think taking a different approach is gonna help you much here. No matter what evidence you give they will just give some excuse. Only the spirit of God will change their heart and enable them to see the truth.

 

AH, the coward's way out - you've got nothing so blame it on us..

oh come on now.  You're better than that jcgadfly.   At least I thought so.  I understood what he was saying to me.  It's obvious you don't and I wouldn't expect you to.  If you did, you wouldn't see it as a coward's way out, only an understanding of how things happen.  

I get what he's saying, and I'm just planting seeds.  The trick is, you'd have to open your heart to God in order for Him to change it.  It's all about choice.

jcgadfly wrote:

If the spirit of God chooses not to change my heart and enable me to see the truth, wouldn't that make him evil?

not unless you were choosing to open your heart to God and he refused you... but that would make Him a false god then because that goes against his promise in scripture. I have not seen an example of that happening.  I can tell you're not choosing to open your heart to God.  How can you open your heart to something you don't believe in?

All you want is someone who opened their heart to God and was rebuffed? Wow, that's too easy, cap. I look at such a one in the mirror daily. I was a follower of God until that moment. I couldn't continue to believe in someone who would say He loved me in his book and then lied about it to my soul.

This is where you and others will say "Oh that couldn't have been God" but the only ones who know for sure are those who were on the ends of my prayers.

All I understand is the same old "You have to agree with my arguments and evidence before I can present them to you. You have to accept my measurement of what I tell you is unmeasurable." that I'm still reading.

Why are you asking me to pay full price for the description of the car again? Especially now that you know that the dealer won't sell to me.

it never said you couldn't walk away

And I did - after i was told "no" by God. What's your point? Should I have stuck around to change the mind of an unchanging God? You sound like the Christians who respond to people who prayed for healing and didn't get it the first time with "Well, you just didn't have enough faith".

Or did you just not bother to read my post because what happened to me didn't match your view?

I read your post.  To what exactly did God say no to?  And are you sure he said no?  I think to rationalize this, i'd need to know more detail of exactly what happened, but then again, that might get to personal for a public forum, so we don't need to go there either.  An example of what happened is good enough.  

I wouldn't say you should have stuck around to "change the mind of an unchanging God" rather stuck around to comprehend why the answer was no and what was to come of it.  Sounds to me as if you got an answer, then chose to turn away from a God you know exists rather than not believing.  Am I wrong?

If you wanted to get into private issues, I'd say no. Personal doesn't bother me.

The question was "Please God send Jesus into my heart and forgive my sins so that I may come back to you" - the answer was a strongly felt "no"

So are you saying that you'd disobey and question the edicts of your God? My training wouldn't let me.

I turned away from God at his command. - Later I learned that there was nothing to turn from.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:TGBaker

Lee2216 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I'm going to stop watching after this note on the fourth installment and see what people have to say, because this guy is quickly losing credibility with me.  right at the beginning he questions an inconsistency in scripture... he asks; "what day did Jesus die on... Did he die the day before the Passover meal was eaten as john explicitly espresses, or did he die after the Passover meal as mark explicitly states?"

I read the text document of this debate. Ehrman got his ass handed to him...once again!

Here's the kicker, Lee.

Did you think that Ehrman got his ass handed to him before or after you read the transcript?

This seems the classic waste of time.

 

 

You think it's a waste of time because your frustrated that you have failed to get me to believe as you do. I know your spirit! anti-christ!

I'll just shed some light on the fact that most of the people on this forum were once believers and had an event or reasoning sometime in their life that caused them to doubt and walk away.  They now hold onto that thing that caused them to walk away.  It seems most are on here to see a logical counter reasoning to their conclusion despite the sarcasm.  The difficulty is getting some of them to discuss it.  It's a bit harsh to call any of them anit-christ.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but they've been hurt by their sects or belief and lost reason to hold onto that understanding.  They're looking for reason to believe... at least that's what they say.  Their hearts will decide for sure.  Remember it's our job to show love.   Use your energy to give them reasons to believe, not reasons to doubt.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Lee2216

TGBaker wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I'm going to stop watching after this note on the fourth installment and see what people have to say, because this guy is quickly losing credibility with me.  right at the beginning he questions an inconsistency in scripture... he asks; "what day did Jesus die on... Did he die the day before the Passover meal was eaten as john explicitly espresses, or did he die after the Passover meal as mark explicitly states?"

I read the text document of this debate. Ehrman got his ass handed to him...once again!

Compare the time the Gospel of John gives for the passover and death of Jesus with that of the other three gospels.  It's your scripture not mine.

All four Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on a Friday afternoon, that the women rested on a Saturday, and that the empty tomb was discovered early on a Sunday morning.  However, the Gospels differ as to whether the Feast of Passover was on Friday or on Saturday in the year Jesus was killed; thus they provide conflicting evidence as to exactly which calendar year it could have been. According to astronomical calculations, the 15th of Nisan in the Jewish lunar calendar fell on a Thursday evening / Friday in AD 27, while it fell on a Friday evening / Saturday in AD 30 and AD 33.

Problem: The Last Supper was or wasn't the Passover meal
Verses: Mark 14:12-18, John 19:14-15, others; Status: Serious

According to the synoptics, the Last Supper appears to have been the Passover meal. On the other hand, John's gospel seems to tell us that Jesus died before the Passover meal.

Synoptics: the Last Supper was the Passover meal

It's necessary to quote Mark at some length to show that, for him, the Last Supper was the Passover. This is Mark 14:12-18:

And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?" And he sent two of his disciples and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us." And the disciples set out and went to the city and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.

And when it was evening, he came with the twelve. And as they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me." (ESV)

These verses certainly give the impression that the meal being eaten is the Passover meal. The disciples ask where the Passover meal is to be eaten; they go there; they prepare; later Jesus arrives; and they do indeed eat a meal. The meaning seems obvious.

Matthew 26:17-21 is almost identical. Meanwhile, Luke 22:8 is even more explicit that Jesus fully expected to eat the Passover meal:

So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it." (ESV)

It's mysterious why Jesus would say this if he was fully aware that he was going to die before the Passover meal.

John: the Passover meal was still to come

John says that, as the Last Supper was getting started, Jesus sent Judas Iscariot away. This is John 13:27-30:

Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do quickly." Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. Some thought that, because Judas had the moneybag, Jesus was telling him, "Buy what we need for the feast," or that he should give something to the poor. So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night. (ESV)

This seems to imply that the group did not yet have what they needed for the Passover feast, which would mean the feast was yet to come. Further evidence for this is provided by John 18:28, where Jesus' accusers were delivering him to Pilate:

Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor's headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor's headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. (ESV)

Finally, John seems to explicitly say that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover. This is Pilate handing over Jesus, at John 19:14-15:

Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Behold your King!" They cried out, "Away with him, away with him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." (ESV)

The problem with this whole synopsis of the gospel supposedly clearly stating that the meal hadn't happened yet is that it apparently is also claiming that they were eating it when Jesus sent Judas away.  So what's really going on.

When the Passover is referenced in John 19, it is referring to the whole festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread which lasts for 7 days and includes several meals.  Passover was just getting started and though they had a Passover meal, preparations were still in play to proceed with the coming days and the many meals to come.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:The problem

caposkia wrote:

The problem with this whole synopsis of the gospel supposedly clearly stating that the meal hadn't happened yet is that it apparently is also claiming that they were eating it when Jesus sent Judas away.  So what's really going on.

When the Passover is referenced in John 19, it is referring to the whole festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread which lasts for 7 days and includes several meals.  Passover was just getting started and though they had a Passover meal, preparations were still in play to proceed with the coming days and the many meals to come.

It's necessary to quote Mark at some length to show that, for him, the Last Supper was the Passover. This is Mark 14:12-18:

And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?" And he sent two of his disciples and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us." And the disciples set out and went to the city and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote:Isn't there

marcusfish wrote:

Isn't there a forum dedicated to arguing about bible errancy?

I like having that forum in place, so I don't stumble onto bible errancy threads. Easily the most pointless form of rational debate I can fathom

ah, anything and everything goes here.  If you're looking for a forum you don't want to stumble on something with, it's not this one... Don't worry, in another month or so, it'll be back to stagnant irrational bickering.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If you wanted

jcgadfly wrote:

If you wanted to get into private issues, I'd say no. Personal doesn't bother me.

i would never ask that of anyone

jcgadfly wrote:

The question was "Please God send Jesus into my heart and forgive my sins so that I may come back to you" - the answer was a strongly felt "no"

how were you so sure the answer was no for that?  

jcgadfly wrote:

So are you saying that you'd disobey and question the edicts of your God? My training wouldn't let me.

If God told me no and I didn't like it. I'd question him.  Look at the story of Job. 

jcgadfly wrote:

I turned away from God at his command. - Later I learned that there was nothing to turn from.

So if there was really nothing to turn from, how did you get a command from a nothing to turn away?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:caposkia

TGBaker wrote:

caposkia wrote:

The problem with this whole synopsis of the gospel supposedly clearly stating that the meal hadn't happened yet is that it apparently is also claiming that they were eating it when Jesus sent Judas away.  So what's really going on.

When the Passover is referenced in John 19, it is referring to the whole festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread which lasts for 7 days and includes several meals.  Passover was just getting started and though they had a Passover meal, preparations were still in play to proceed with the coming days and the many meals to come.

It's necessary to quote Mark at some length to show that, for him, the Last Supper was the Passover. This is Mark 14:12-18:

And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?" And he sent two of his disciples and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us." And the disciples set out and went to the city and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.

Notice it said "the first day".  It's hard unless you're Jewish for us to understand a reference to a multi-day celebration, but the passover meal was referenced to as the whole 7 days and not as individual meals.   In other words, they went to prepare the passover meal for him.  To them it was preparation for a 7 day feast.  


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:I just love

Lee2216 wrote:

I just love how you atheists think you have a monopoly on objectivity.

Well, the facts of errors were discovered by theologians and historians.

And the facts are the facts.

Your whole world is based on convoluted conjecture translated into english from millenia old notes written by, bigoted, misogynist, homophobic, misanthropic, utterly ignorant, superstitious homicidal fascists.

According to their notes.

We didn't make this sh1t up.

That's some koolaid you guys are drinking.

Glad you've been overthrown, and put on a leash.

 

You need a dictionary.

You incorrectly use the terms facts, truth, and objective.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

If you wanted to get into private issues, I'd say no. Personal doesn't bother me.

i would never ask that of anyone

jcgadfly wrote:

The question was "Please God send Jesus into my heart and forgive my sins so that I may come back to you" - the answer was a strongly felt "no"

how were you so sure the answer was no for that?  

jcgadfly wrote:

So are you saying that you'd disobey and question the edicts of your God? My training wouldn't let me.

If God told me no and I didn't like it. I'd question him.  Look at the story of Job. 

jcgadfly wrote:

I turned away from God at his command. - Later I learned that there was nothing to turn from.

So if there was really nothing to turn from, how did you get a command from a nothing to turn away?

In reverse order:

1. Maybe I wasn't being rational as a Christian?

2. Job...I always wondered why God took that backtalk from Job. The only other guy he took that from was Abraham. Maybe it was because Yahweh knew he was being a dick to Job.

3. How did I know the answer was to that question - it was the only one I asked. I had never been a "gimme gimme" Christian.

4. Well you might ask private stuff if you didn't know where my line was. If you crossed it I'd tell you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:marcusfish

caposkia wrote:

marcusfish wrote:

Isn't there a forum dedicated to arguing about bible errancy?

I like having that forum in place, so I don't stumble onto bible errancy threads. Easily the most pointless form of rational debate I can fathom

ah, anything and everything goes here.  If you're looking for a forum you don't want to stumble on something with, it's not this one... Don't worry, in another month or so, it'll be back to stagnant irrational bickering.  

The only thing stagnant  and irrational in this thread are your arguments.

You simply want your super hero to be real. There is no such thing as an invisible brain, BY ANY NAME, not yours, not any, past or present.

You keep saying you have evidence. We keep telling you HOW you can prove it to us. You don't want to do that. THAT should tell you something.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

caposkia wrote:

The problem with this whole synopsis of the gospel supposedly clearly stating that the meal hadn't happened yet is that it apparently is also claiming that they were eating it when Jesus sent Judas away.  So what's really going on.

When the Passover is referenced in John 19, it is referring to the whole festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread which lasts for 7 days and includes several meals.  Passover was just getting started and though they had a Passover meal, preparations were still in play to proceed with the coming days and the many meals to come.

It's necessary to quote Mark at some length to show that, for him, the Last Supper was the Passover. This is Mark 14:12-18:

And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?" And he sent two of his disciples and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us." And the disciples set out and went to the city and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.

Notice it said "the first day".  It's hard unless you're Jewish for us to understand a reference to a multi-day celebration, but the passover meal was referenced to as the whole 7 days and not as individual meals.   In other words, they went to prepare the passover meal for him.  To them it was preparation for a 7 day feast.  

According to the synoptic gospels Jesus was arrested on the night that the paschal lamb was sacrificed. …The description of the Last Supper given in the gospels is undoubtedly a record of the Seder of the first night of Passover. …Mark and Matthew make no mention that Jesus ate the Paschal lamb. Luke relates that Jesus said to his Apostles, "with desire I desired to eat this paschal lamb with you." The reason that Mark, Matthew and Luke did not mention that Jesus ate the paschal lamb was that they held that Jesus himself was the paschal lamb that was to be sacrificed to redeem men. … According to the Gospel of John the Last Supper was an ordinary meal, since Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. Hence, the meal, which Jesus ate with his disciples on the preceding night, could not have been the Passover meal. The Last Supper, according to John, was on Thursday the 13th of the month and Jesus was arrested and crucified the following morning Friday the 14th, a day before Passover.”A problem still exists as to the date of the Last Supper, the exact date of which affects the nature of the meal. According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, Christ ate the Passover meal with his disciples on the day when “they sacrificed the Passover Lamb” (Mark 14:12; cf. Luke 22:7; Matt 26:17), which is Nisan 14. He was crucified the following day, Nisan 15. This means that the Last Supper was most likely a Passover Supper since it was partaken at the time the Jews ate their Passover meal. However, according to the Gospel of John, Jesus was crucified on the day when the Passover lamb was sacrificed (John 19:14; 18:28), Nisan 14. This means He ate the Last Supper with His disciples the day before the official Passover meal. In this case Jesus’ meal with His disciples may have been either a specially arranged Passover meal or a farewell fellowship meal unrelated to the Passover, because it was partaken of the evening before the official Passover. Countless attempts have been made to reconcile the chronology of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) with that of John. Some have tried to resolve the difficulty by presupposing the existence of two dates for Passover, one to suit the calendar of the Pharisees and the other that of the Sadducees.

 

The Orthodox Church follows the chronology of John's Gospel which places Last Supper on Thursday evening before the beginning of Sabbath and Passover on which fell on Friday evening; Western Christianity on the other hand follows the chronology of the synoptic gospels which places the Last Supper and Passover on the same day, Thursday.

Passover begins on the 15th day of the month of Nisan, which typically falls in March or April of the Gregorian calendar. In accordance with the Hebrew Bible, Nisan is the first month of the Hebrew calendar's festival year.[5] Passover is a spring festival, so the 14th day of Nisan begins on the night of a full moon after the vernal equinox. To ensure that Passover did not start before spring, the tradition in ancient Israel held that the first day of Nisan would not start until the barley is ripe, being the test for the onset of spring.[6] If the barley was not ripe an intercalary month (Adar II) would be added. However, since at least the 12th century, the date has been determined mathematically.[citation needed]

In Israel, Passover is the seven-day holiday of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, with the first and last days observed as legal holidays and as holy days involving abstention from work, special prayer services, and holiday meals; the intervening days are known as Chol HaMoed ("festival days&quotEye-wink. Diaspora Jews historically observed the festival for eight days, and most still do. Reform and Reconstructionist Jews and Israeli Jews, wherever they are, usually observe the holiday over seven days. The reason for this extra day is due to enactment of the Sages. It is thought by many scholars that Jews outside of Israel could not be certain if their local calendars fully conformed to practice of the Temple at Jerusalem, so they added an extra day. But as this practice only attaches to certain (major) holy days, others posit the extra day may have been added to accommodate people who had to travel long distances to participate in communal worship and ritual practices; or the practice may have evolved as a compromise between conflicting interpretations of Jewish Law regarding the calendar; or it may have evolved as a safety measure in areas where Jews were commonly in danger, so that their enemies would not be certain on which day to attack.[7]

All three Synoptic Gospels[12] also recount, in similar words, the same supper.[13] The gospel accounts are more detailed, including the meal's location (an upper room) and Jesus' foreknowledge of his betrayal by Judas. Jesus also tells the disciples that he will not drink wine again until he drinks it in God's Kingdom.

In Mark 14:24 and Matthew 26:28 (in the best manuscripts), Jesus' reference to the "blood of the covenant" echoes Exodus 24:8, suggesting a tradition that understood Jesus' sacrifice in terms of the Mosaic covenant with Israel.[14] In some manuscripts, the word "new" appears in the phrase, so in these manuscripts Jesus refers to the blood of the "new covenant."

Only in Luke does Jesus tell his disciples to repeat the ritual of bread and wine.[15] These particular lines do not appear in certain ancient manuscripts and might not be original to the text.[16]
[edit] Last Supper in John

In John, Jesus has his last supper and is executed not on the day Nisan 15 (the first night of Passover) but on Nisan 14, when the Passover lambs were slaughtered. Presumably the author preferred this date because it associated Jesus as the Lamb of God with the sacrificial lambs of Passover.[17]
The last Supper by Jacques Du Broeucq (Mons - 1541-1545).

In its account of the Last Supper, John's Gospel, which does not speak of an institution, with bread and wine, of a new covenant,[4] tells of Jesus washing his disciples' feet before the meal.[4] Martin F. Connell has suggested that some early Christian communities may have used foot-washing as the rite of initiation.[18]

At the meal, according to John, Jesus gave an extended sermon to his disciples.[19] These discourses resemble farewell speeches called testaments, in which a father or religious leader, often on the deathbed, leaves instructions for his children or followers.[20] This sermon is sometimes referred to as the farewell discourse of Jesus, and has historically been considered a source of Christian doctrine, particularly on the subject of Christology. Amongst the canonical Gospels, John is unusual in the complexity of its Christology (which has led to questions about its authenticity), and this sermon portrays one of the most complex Christological descriptions in John. Jesus is presented as explaining the relationship between himself and his followers, and seeking to model this relationship on his own relationship with God.

The account in chapters 14-17 of John includes an extended metaphor of Jesus as the true vine. God is described as the vine tender, and his disciples are said to be branches, which must "abide" in him if they are to "bear fruit". The disciples are warned that barren branches are pruned by the vinedresser. This image has been influential in Christian art and iconography. The disciples are reminded of the love of God for Jesus, and of Jesus for the disciples (especially the beloved disciple), and are then instructed to "love one another" in the same manner. It goes on to speak of the "greatest love" as being the willingness to "lay down" life for one's friends, and this passage has since been widely used to affirm the sacrifice of martyrs and soldiers in war, and is thus often seen on war memorials and graves.

The sermon goes on to talk of Jesus' sending "another paraclete" (Greek: ἄλλο Παράκλητο&nuEye-wink, a "Spirit of Truth" that will "testify about" Jesus.[21] Paraclete comes from the Koine Greek word παράκλητος (paraklētos, "one who consoles, one who intercedes on our behalf, a comforter or an advocate&quotEye-wink. When the dogmatic definition of the Trinity became necessary in the 3rd century, the passage became central to the arguments about the role of the Holy Spirit. Arguments about the Filioque, which partly caused the East-West Schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, centered around this verse. In some sectors of the early Jesus movement the paraclete was considered a more human figure, and, in the 2nd century, Montanus claimed that he himself was this paraclete that had been promised.

Verses 14:30-31 represent a conclusion, and most modern scholars regard the next three chapters to have been inserted later.[20]

Prominent Biblical scholars consider the farewell discourse not to be authentic.[20] Stories about Jesus and his teaching were transmitted orally for decades after his death, and the farewell discourse is too long and prose-like to have been transmitted this way.[22] In addition, it appears only in the gospel of John, which is considered a poor source for historical information about Jesus.[4][23] Most scholars regard the discourses as having been assembled over time, representing the theology of the "Johannine circle" more than the message of the historical Jesus.[20]

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:According to

TGBaker wrote:

According to the synoptic gospels ...

People talk.

People tell lies.

We all know that.

 

I guess the whole problem is simple.

They don't want to admit it's all they've got.

Talk.

That's all that it boils down to.

Lotsa talk.

And more talk.

Lots to 'talk' about.

 

People talk.

There's no smoke without a fire.

There's lotsa smoke.

But there's no fire.

 

Therefore a god exists.

 

Brilliant.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:TGBaker

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

According to the synoptic gospels ...

People talk.

People tell lies.

We all know that.

 

I guess the whole problem is simple.

They don't want to admit it's all they've got.

Talk.

That's all that it boils down to.

Lotsa talk.

And more talk.

Lots to 'talk' about.

 

People talk.

There's no smoke without a fire.

There's lotsa smoke.

But there's no fire.

 

Therefore a god exists.

 

Brilliant.

 

The most amazing thing is that they do what is considered a sin if others do...they read into their scripture differnet meaning that what the actual writing says for a presupposition about its inspiration giving it infallibility. The meaning of the narrative is altered by their attempted harmonizations of the conflicting stories. Read John by itself jesus is killed before the Passover meal . Read matthew he is killed after the passover meal. In matthew he is dead by high 12 noon. In John he is on trial still at noon.


Simply meaning is convoluted to protect the scripture from itself!!!!

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: The most

TGBaker wrote:

 

The most amazing thing is that they do what is considered a sin if others do...they read into their scripture differnet meaning that what the actual writing says for a presupposition about its inspiration giving it infallibility. The meaning of the narrative is altered by their attempted harmonizations of the conflicting stories. Read John by itself jesus is killed before the Passover meal . Read matthew he is killed after the passover meal. In matthew he is dead by high 12 noon. In John he is on trial still at noon.


 

Simply meaning is convoluted to protect the scripture from itself!!!!

The little devils...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:In reverse

jcgadfly wrote:

In reverse order:

1. Maybe I wasn't being rational as a Christian?

maybe... but that's not an answer.  What told you the answer was no?  Or did you decide that on your own.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. Job...I always wondered why God took that backtalk from Job. The only other guy he took that from was Abraham. Maybe it was because Yahweh knew he was being a dick to Job.

He didn't "take it from Job"  He listened and let Job make his case so that when God gave it back to Him, Job wouldn't be able to say anything and God would have covered all grounds that Job objected to.  Point is, no one said you can't question God.  God will listen.

jcgadfly wrote:

3. How did I know the answer was to that question - it was the only one I asked. I had never been a "gimme gimme" Christian.

not what I asked.  For the question, how do you know what the answer was?  Remember your conclusion was that there's nothing there, and yet you're telling me you got an answer.

jcgadfly wrote:

4. Well you might ask private stuff if you didn't know where my line was. If you crossed it I'd tell you.

Ok, I hope you would.  I never intend to cross lines and will willingly step back if I ever push them. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The only thing

Brian37 wrote:

The only thing stagnant  and irrational in this thread are your arguments.

Big words!

let's start a real conversation then.... if you're up for it.

Brian37 wrote:

You simply want your super hero to be real. There is no such thing as an invisible brain, BY ANY NAME, not yours, not any, past or present.

And again, strawman arguments that can go either way.  lemme see...

You simply don't want God to be real.  You want to believe there's no such thing as an invisible brain, BY ANY NAME. not mine, not any, past or present.

Brian37 wrote:

You keep saying you have evidence. We keep telling you HOW you can prove it to us. You don't want to do that. THAT should tell you something.

You keep saying there's no God. I keep asking you for your research to prove it to me.  You don't want to do that.  THAT should tell you something.

K, that's getting boring, can we have a real conversation yet? or are you still not ready.  

The problem with this last one is I've already explained myself and I'm not going to do it again.  You're going to believe what you want, but you're hard pressed to get others to believe you when you've hurt your credibility so much at this point.

 

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: According

TGBaker wrote:

 

According to the synoptic gospels Jesus was arrested on the night that the paschal lamb was sacrificed. …The description of the Last Supper given in the gospels is undoubtedly a record of the Seder of the first night of Passover. …Mark and Matthew make no mention that Jesus ate the Paschal lamb. Luke relates that Jesus said to his Apostles, "with desire I desired to eat this paschal lamb with you." The reason that Mark, Matthew and Luke did not mention that Jesus ate the paschal lamb was that they held that Jesus himself was the paschal lamb that was to be sacrificed to redeem men. … According to the Gospel of John the Last Supper was an ordinary meal, since Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. Hence, the meal, which Jesus ate with his disciples on the preceding night, could not have been the Passover meal. The Last Supper, according to John, was on Thursday the 13th of the month and Jesus was arrested and crucified the following morning Friday the 14th, a day before Passover.”A problem still exists as to the date of the Last Supper, the exact date of which affects the nature of the meal. According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, Christ ate the Passover meal with his disciples on the day when “they sacrificed the Passover Lamb” (Mark 14:12; cf. Luke 22:7; Matt 26:17), which is Nisan 14. He was crucified the following day, Nisan 15. This means that the Last Supper was most likely a Passover Supper since it was partaken at the time the Jews ate their Passover meal. However, according to the Gospel of John, Jesus was crucified on the day when the Passover lamb was sacrificed (John 19:14; 18:28), Nisan 14. This means He ate the Last Supper with His disciples the day before the official Passover meal. In this case Jesus’ meal with His disciples may have been either a specially arranged Passover meal or a farewell fellowship meal unrelated to the Passover, because it was partaken of the evening before the official Passover. Countless attempts have been made to reconcile the chronology of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) with that of John. Some have tried to resolve the difficulty by presupposing the existence of two dates for Passover, one to suit the calendar of the Pharisees and the other that of the Sadducees.

Despite the difficulty in determining the exact date, it is widely accepted by scholars and Christians like that Jesus and his disciples shared a Passover meal.  Whether it was eaten before or after the sacrificial lamb does not change the metaphor of Jesus being that lamb for all mankind.  If the dates are as off as some claim, it is possible that knowing Jesus didn't have much time, they pushed the date of the first meal.  

In any case, none of this changes the validity or fluency of the story or Gospels with the Bible and the Christian belief.  The disciples still had a last meal around the Passover with Jesus before he was crucified.  His crucifixion holds the same meaning.  

TGBaker wrote:

 

The Orthodox Church follows the chronology of John's Gospel which places Last Supper on Thursday evening before the beginning of Sabbath and Passover on which fell on Friday evening; Western Christianity on the other hand follows the chronology of the synoptic gospels which places the Last Supper and Passover on the same day, Thursday.

Passover begins on the 15th day of the month of Nisan, which typically falls in March or April of the Gregorian calendar. In accordance with the Hebrew Bible, Nisan is the first month of the Hebrew calendar's festival year.[5] Passover is a spring festival, so the 14th day of Nisan begins on the night of a full moon after the vernal equinox. To ensure that Passover did not start before spring, the tradition in ancient Israel held that the first day of Nisan would not start until the barley is ripe, being the test for the onset of spring.[6] If the barley was not ripe an intercalary month (Adar II) would be added. However, since at least the 12th century, the date has been determined mathematically.[citation needed]

In Israel, Passover is the seven-day holiday of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, with the first and last days observed as legal holidays and as holy days involving abstention from work, special prayer services, and holiday meals; the intervening days are known as Chol HaMoed ("festival days&quotEye-wink. Diaspora Jews historically observed the festival for eight days, and most still do. Reform and Reconstructionist Jews and Israeli Jews, wherever they are, usually observe the holiday over seven days. The reason for this extra day is due to enactment of the Sages. It is thought by many scholars that Jews outside of Israel could not be certain if their local calendars fully conformed to practice of the Temple at Jerusalem, so they added an extra day. But as this practice only attaches to certain (major) holy days, others posit the extra day may have been added to accommodate people who had to travel long distances to participate in communal worship and ritual practices; or the practice may have evolved as a compromise between conflicting interpretations of Jewish Law regarding the calendar; or it may have evolved as a safety measure in areas where Jews were commonly in danger, so that their enemies would not be certain on which day to attack.[7]

All three Synoptic Gospels[12] also recount, in similar words, the same supper.[13] The gospel accounts are more detailed, including the meal's location (an upper room) and Jesus' foreknowledge of his betrayal by Judas. Jesus also tells the disciples that he will not drink wine again until he drinks it in God's Kingdom.

In Mark 14:24 and Matthew 26:28 (in the best manuscripts), Jesus' reference to the "blood of the covenant" echoes Exodus 24:8, suggesting a tradition that understood Jesus' sacrifice in terms of the Mosaic covenant with Israel.[14] In some manuscripts, the word "new" appears in the phrase, so in these manuscripts Jesus refers to the blood of the "new covenant."

Only in Luke does Jesus tell his disciples to repeat the ritual of bread and wine.[15] These particular lines do not appear in certain ancient manuscripts and might not be original to the text.[16]
[edit] Last Supper in John

In John, Jesus has his last supper and is executed not on the day Nisan 15 (the first night of Passover) but on Nisan 14, when the Passover lambs were slaughtered. Presumably the author preferred this date because it associated Jesus as the Lamb of God with the sacrificial lambs of Passover.[17]
The last Supper by Jacques Du Broeucq (Mons - 1541-1545).

In its account of the Last Supper, John's Gospel, which does not speak of an institution, with bread and wine, of a new covenant,[4] tells of Jesus washing his disciples' feet before the meal.[4] Martin F. Connell has suggested that some early Christian communities may have used foot-washing as the rite of initiation.[18]

At the meal, according to John, Jesus gave an extended sermon to his disciples.[19] These discourses resemble farewell speeches called testaments, in which a father or religious leader, often on the deathbed, leaves instructions for his children or followers.[20] This sermon is sometimes referred to as the farewell discourse of Jesus, and has historically been considered a source of Christian doctrine, particularly on the subject of Christology. Amongst the canonical Gospels, John is unusual in the complexity of its Christology (which has led to questions about its authenticity), and this sermon portrays one of the most complex Christological descriptions in John. Jesus is presented as explaining the relationship between himself and his followers, and seeking to model this relationship on his own relationship with God.

The account in chapters 14-17 of John includes an extended metaphor of Jesus as the true vine. God is described as the vine tender, and his disciples are said to be branches, which must "abide" in him if they are to "bear fruit". The disciples are warned that barren branches are pruned by the vinedresser. This image has been influential in Christian art and iconography. The disciples are reminded of the love of God for Jesus, and of Jesus for the disciples (especially the beloved disciple), and are then instructed to "love one another" in the same manner. It goes on to speak of the "greatest love" as being the willingness to "lay down" life for one's friends, and this passage has since been widely used to affirm the sacrifice of martyrs and soldiers in war, and is thus often seen on war memorials and graves.

The sermon goes on to talk of Jesus' sending "another paraclete" (Greek: ἄλλο Παράκλητο&nuEye-wink, a "Spirit of Truth" that will "testify about" Jesus.[21] Paraclete comes from the Koine Greek word παράκλητος (paraklētos, "one who consoles, one who intercedes on our behalf, a comforter or an advocate&quotEye-wink. When the dogmatic definition of the Trinity became necessary in the 3rd century, the passage became central to the arguments about the role of the Holy Spirit. Arguments about the Filioque, which partly caused the East-West Schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, centered around this verse. In some sectors of the early Jesus movement the paraclete was considered a more human figure, and, in the 2nd century, Montanus claimed that he himself was this paraclete that had been promised.

Verses 14:30-31 represent a conclusion, and most modern scholars regard the next three chapters to have been inserted later.[20]

Prominent Biblical scholars consider the farewell discourse not to be authentic.[20] Stories about Jesus and his teaching were transmitted orally for decades after his death, and the farewell discourse is too long and prose-like to have been transmitted this way.[22] In addition, it appears only in the gospel of John, which is considered a poor source for historical information about Jesus.[4][23] Most scholars regard the discourses as having been assembled over time, representing the theology of the "Johannine circle" more than the message of the historical Jesus.[20]

good research.  Brian! This is what I'm talking about when I ask you for your research!

This is a good synopsis of how it became indoctrinated.  Again, i don't like doctrines.  In my mind, it's the churches way of making scripture say what they want it to say.  I think from this we can see the difference between the doctrine and what the scriptures say.  

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I don't have to do research,

I don't have to do research, scientfic method HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED LONG BEFORE I WAS BORN.

Scientific metod unlike the bible. is not rooted in myth and full of convoluted fantastic claims.

You are asking me to do your homework for you. You admit you cannot use scientific method to prove the existence of your god. YOU LOSE!

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:The most

TGBaker wrote:

The most amazing thing is that they do what is considered a sin if others do...they read into their scripture differnet meaning that what the actual writing says for a presupposition about its inspiration giving it infallibility. The meaning of the narrative is altered by their attempted harmonizations of the conflicting stories. Read John by itself jesus is killed before the Passover meal . Read matthew he is killed after the passover meal. In matthew he is dead by high 12 noon. In John he is on trial still at noon.

 

Simply meaning is convoluted to protect the scripture from itself!!!!

discrepancies in dates and times are typical for scripts from this time and earlier.  Discussing with PJTS in a history forum, we have discussed many time and I hold to the point that discrepancies like these don't change the context or meaning or purpose of the story.  It looks to me here that before or after, noon or midnight, it doesn't change what happened to Jesus or why it happened... which was the point of the story.    I still hold to the point that John is not making it clear that it happened before, but that the supper discussed is the first Passover meal.  There is no indication that it's not and not enough information otherwise to conclude such.  The fact that we have 4 stories from 4 different authors that didn't know each other directly and yet were in agreement with the core details.  

It's funny that such an unimportant detail is being debated as the difference between these stories holding validity and not and yet other stories from this era and earlier with the same type of discrepancies aren't questioned as much... generally speaking, not talking about anything  specific, but if you want to, pick any one from Biblical times and we can analyze them.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I don't have

Brian37 wrote:

I don't have to do research, scientfic method HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED LONG BEFORE I WAS BORN.

Scientific metod unlike the bible. is not rooted in myth and full of convoluted fantastic claims.

You are asking me to do your homework for you. You admit you cannot use scientific method to prove the existence of your god. YOU LOSE!

 

I admitted to wanting to work with you and USE the scientific method in the process.  We discussed this, you coward into a corner. 

I'm not asking you to do my homework, but when you make statements such as 'your God is not real'. you're going to need to back up that claim with reasoning, not excuses like you have been.

*edit*

To claim you don't have to do research should tell you something.... lemme put it this way.  If I told you.  God is real, I don't have to do research, the belief HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED LONG BEFORE I WAS BORN...  What would you tell me?


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Proof

caposkia wrote:

I admitted to wanting to work with you and USE the scientific method in the process.  We discussed this, you coward into a corner. 

I'm not asking you to do my homework, but when you make statements such as 'your God is not real'. you're going to need to back up that claim with reasoning, not excuses like you have been.

Cap, a person can pretty easily make the claim that "your god is not real" based on the fact that no evidence has ever been presented in favor of such a proposition. It is not so much a positive claim as it is just an observation. There is no evidence required to disregard a claim based on wild and fantastic speculation - all of which flies in the face of what we know to be true.

It is a twaddle proposition, and it is perfectly reasonable to treat it as such until it is supported by evidence that is as fantastic as the claim.

caposkia wrote:
To claim you don't have to do research should tell you something.... lemme put it this way.  If I told you.  God is real, I don't have to do research, the belief HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED LONG BEFORE I WAS BORN...  What would you tell me?

I'm sure your belief in god is quite real to you. You don't need to provide evidence for a belief - it is not an extraordinary claim to say that belief in god exists.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

The most amazing thing is that they do what is considered a sin if others do...they read into their scripture differnet meaning that what the actual writing says for a presupposition about its inspiration giving it infallibility. The meaning of the narrative is altered by their attempted harmonizations of the conflicting stories. Read John by itself jesus is killed before the Passover meal . Read matthew he is killed after the passover meal. In matthew he is dead by high 12 noon. In John he is on trial still at noon.

 

Simply meaning is convoluted to protect the scripture from itself!!!!

discrepancies in dates and times are typical for scripts from this time and earlier.  Discussing with PJTS in a history forum, we have discussed many time and I hold to the point that discrepancies like these don't change the context or meaning or purpose of the story.  It looks to me here that before or after, noon or midnight, it doesn't change what happened to Jesus or why it happened... which was the point of the story.    I still hold to the point that John is not making it clear that it happened before, but that the supper discussed is the first Passover meal.  There is no indication that it's not and not enough information otherwise to conclude such.  The fact that we have 4 stories from 4 different authors that didn't know each other directly and yet were in agreement with the core details.  

It's funny that such an unimportant detail is being debated as the difference between these stories holding validity and not and yet other stories from this era and earlier with the same type of discrepancies aren't questioned as much... generally speaking, not talking about anything  specific, but if you want to, pick any one from Biblical times and we can analyze them.

Actually it shows the basis of information for the proposition that Jesus is the Christ is suspect. The discrepancies in turn can be analysed for motivation. For example John changing the time reflected in Matthew so that Jesus's death would coincide with the slaughter of the lambs. This in turn is to build the theological theme that jesus is the Passover Lamb and proposing that Jesus is a sacrifice for sin.  They are often minor but are cumulative and add up to significance.For example looking at the various re-workings of Mark by matthew and Luke shows that they had an agenda to overcome the idea that jesus was a disciple of John the baptist, to create an apology for why he would have been baptised for the remission of sin, and to subordinate the Baptist to Jesus as a precursor. Looking at the way matthew handles various texts you can see the elimination of normal human behavior from mark's presentation to a more  supernatural figure. Why do you call Me good when there is none good but God is reworked to Why do you ask me about the good. On and on and so forth...additions of to methods to make Jesus virgin born is another whole agenda that has to do with analysing exactly how the texts were composed and what the authors are up to.  I think as Gunther Bornkamm said there is a brim full of history in the texts but geting to it and seeing what the history is is another matter.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

...discrepancies in dates and times are typical for scripts from this time and earlier.  

Tell it to the judge.

Look, they weren't even capable of getting their stories straight, even back then.

You are in no position to 'fill in gaps' with speculations, or 'fill in gaps' with claims of knowing anything that you were not witness to personally.

You simply cannot.

That's why investigators and scientists spent so much time and resources to go to the bottom of the ocean to survey the remains of the Titanic. The 'evidence' is there, but they are many gaps that they will never be able to bridge.

Same with 9/11.

They have video, they have survellience footage, they have cockpit voice recorders, they have phone messages, they have eye witnesses, they had rubble and debris.

And there is still uncertainty, on major points of what actually occurred, despite the level of forensic analysis, and mountains of records, and data, eye witness accounts, testimony of actual survivors, and physical evidence.

That makes what's written in 2000 yr old legends, even more anecdotal, and less likely to be factual, even if they weren't simply fiction to begin with.

There's no logical reason to assume these anecdotal legends are any more authentic than the legends of other religions, that are incompatible with the religion you are biased towards.

 

You, and you people are not willing to be honest about it, but you cannot escape from the reality that you don't know a single damn thing for sure .

That's the reality.

This is not even up for 'interpretation'.

You were not there, so there's no possible way you can claim you have any 'facts'. You couldn't possibly be in a position to certify that a bunch of 2000 yr old notes, written many years after what is alleged.

You were not there at the time.

What would be honest for you to say, is;  " I don't know, I wasn't there"

Because, you're no different than anyone else. They weren't there either.

You have no basis to posture as an authority, over any one else.

 

None.

Nada.

Zip.

Squat.

Not a fcuking chance in hell.

Fugget aboudit.

caposkia wrote:
I hold to the point that discrepancies like these don't change the context or meaning or purpose of the story.  

That's moot.

It doesn't matter.

You were not there, therefore this could be entirely fictional, and you would never know.

Because you couldn't possibly know.

caposkia wrote:
... pick any one from Biblical times and we can analyze them.

What's the point of the exercise?

It doesn't change the fact that without having been there, you could never be certain that it wasn't entirely fictional.

caposkia wrote:
I admitted to wanting to work with you and USE the scientific method in the process. 

Well, give us something to test, Einstein.

Your willingness, is meaningless.

Your inability to provide physical evidence is your handicap.

Your handicap forces science into a 'standby'.

We're still waiting.................................................................................................................

 

There's no physical evidence, to examine scientifically.

You need physical evidence of the actual event, the subjects in question, and the physical location and surroundings, immediately after the alleged events took place, in order to do forensics.

Do that, and you have provided something to do forensics on.

Notes on paper, do not contain any physical evidence of Noah's Ark, or any of the thousands upon thousands of animals that were alleged in the stories.

So, pointing to pieces of paper, that allege these things took place, is heresay.

AKA : Urban legend

Putting writing under a microscope is going to show you what the paper and ink were made of, regardless of what is written. You can't verify the authenticity of the claims written, with a microscope.

 

caposkia wrote:
We discussed this, you coward into a corner. 

Ummmm, hypocrite much?

What forensic evidence do you have?

 

Are you people hiding it?

 

caposkia wrote:
I'm not asking you to do my homework

Ummm, yes, actually, you are.

You are asking to demostrate that your lack of evidence is sufficient/insufficient to prove/disprove your story, that you got from 2000 yr old urban legends.

That's absurd.

You could invent extraordinary claims that exact way, all day long, and you'd be no further ahead, in proving their veracity.

Like, that you were abducted by aliens last night, and elected their leader.

You would like it, if others would accept that to be the 'truth' based on 'face value'.

Ummmm.....reality doesn't work that way.

Just ask an official. Like a cop, an inspector, a judge...

caposkia wrote:
...but when you make statements such as 'your God is not real'. you're going to need to back up that claim with reasoning

Ummmm, hypocrite much?

It's 100% sound to say that a god is not real, just as it is for you to say that the gods of other religions are not real.

 

You are not more equal than others.

You are not entitled to a double standard, or to arbitrarily overrule other people's personal experiences based on your personal experiences, and opinions.

You see no evidence of their gods, we see no evidence of yours.

Tit for Tat.

 

Deal with it.

 

Under no circumstances, would I let someone get in my face, and lecture me that I didn't know what I was talking about, when I say I've never seen any gods.

So, running your mouth at me here, is just posturing.

Don't waste your time, or mine, with that BS.

I've given you sound, logical, rational reasons for both why you are in no position, to arbitrarily decide what is real, and what is not, and for how to be able to rectify that deficit position.

 

If you have any forensic evidence, that would change everything.

But, even if you did.........you still wouldn't scientifically be in the free and clear, till the evidence was examined, and cross examined, and sent out for double blind, for analysis.

That would be the minimum baseline required, for certification, for something of this significance.

 

Put up, or STFU, already.

 

What's with you people?

Man up, or quit your sulking and thumping. You have ZERO grounds to allege that skeptics are not being fair and reasonable in their base requirements.

There's simply not enough available scientists on earth, to accept 'allegations' of Jesus on pieces of toast, much less try and think of ways to verify/falsify the lack of forensic evidence of any gods, or jesus characters, virgin births, Noah's Ark, burning bushes, the tablets that the ten commandments were allegedly written on, etc, etc, etc...

 

You wanna claim that 'Where there's smoke, there's fire"?

Send us the ashes, at the very least.

Or STFU, already, and stop being so relentless and obnoxious.

You need to put up, or shutup.

You're like petulant infantiles...

You're not going to get your way, in America.

One of the best definitions of insanity is doing the exact same thing, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over...... and expecting a different result.

 

You people have been at it for hundreds of years.

You're certifiable insane.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I don't have to do research, scientfic method HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED LONG BEFORE I WAS BORN.

Scientific metod unlike the bible. is not rooted in myth and full of convoluted fantastic claims.

You are asking me to do your homework for you. You admit you cannot use scientific method to prove the existence of your god. YOU LOSE!

 

I admitted to wanting to work with you and USE the scientific method in the process.  We discussed this, you coward into a corner. 

I'm not asking you to do my homework, but when you make statements such as 'your God is not real'. you're going to need to back up that claim with reasoning, not excuses like you have been.

*edit*

To claim you don't have to do research should tell you something.... lemme put it this way.  If I told you.  God is real, I don't have to do research, the belief HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED LONG BEFORE I WAS BORN...  What would you tell me?

YOU ARE THE COWARD, not me. Don't ask us what we would accept as evidence and then refuse to apply it.

Quote:
the belief HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED LONG BEFORE I WAS BORN...

NOT AS FACT. A history of making claims doesn't make them fact, otherwise the once popular belief that the earth was flat would be true because people went around claiming it.

All you have is a history of a book being written by scientifically inept ignorant goat herders over 1,000 year period by 40 authors with books left out. Harly scientific method in a lab setting.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INVISIBLE MAGICAL SUPER BRAIN, NOT YOURS NOT ANY.

It is just you wanting your super hero to be real.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: Cap, a

marcusfish wrote:

 

Cap, a person can pretty easily make the claim that "your god is not real" based on the fact that no evidence has ever been presented in favor of such a proposition. It is not so much a positive claim as it is just an observation. There is no evidence required to disregard a claim based on wild and fantastic speculation - all of which flies in the face of what we know to be true.

it's one thing to say; "I have not seen reasonable evidence to conclude that God is real, therefore I say he's not."  It's another thing to claim as Brian does and add; "you're God is not real, he is just like...(insert mythical character or creature) and has been made up by propaganda..." etc. etc. etc... there comes a point that with the compilation of reasoning for thinking God is not real, I'm going to need to see the research to back it up.

marcusfish wrote:

It is a twaddle proposition, and it is perfectly reasonable to treat it as such until it is supported by evidence that is as fantastic as the claim.

as to which I have repeatedly offered him to work with me on.  The catch is, I make him pick the topic, instead, he rants about how delusional I am and ignores the invite.  If I ever took that approach I guarantee I'd be deemed a moron and also be labeled as refusing to present a reasonable case for my conclusion.  

marcusfish wrote:

I'm sure your belief in god is quite real to you. You don't need to provide evidence for a belief - it is not an extraordinary claim to say that belief in god exists.

Sure you do.  The reason why one would believe God is real is for the same reason one would believe he's not.  It all has to do with reasonable evidences.  If there was absolutely no "plausible" evidence of a God, then there would be nothing to believe in.  There has to be at least a plausibility.  Confirmed evidence?  Depends on what you're looking at and the mindset you have... to me, the accumulated evidence of personal accounts of what would be considered "God sightings" which are works of God that don't have another likely cause, would be confirmed evidence because the stories are congruent from culture to culture around the world.  They also come from believers as well as skeptics.  Testable?  Sure... but it's not going to be easy.    You'd have to get test subjects and a control that would have the same state of mind and from the same cultural background as those who have already experienced the "God-sighting" or had it happen to them.  Then you put them in the same situation the others had been in... it's likely a situation that either would put a persons life at risk or test their reaction to X... usually a conflicting religious situation of sorts, e.g. the assassin who saw the faith in a Christian woman when he threatened her life and killed people in her presence.    He ultimately became a believer and a follower of Christ.  I think you can see why it wouldn't be easy to execute... quite irrational to take such extreme measures to empirically prove God's existence.  

I think this is where people have a hard time with accepting my proposals.  They know it's difficult... and they think that if God is real, there must be an easier way.  There is, but it has to do with personal experience.  I've even offered that approach and was willing to walk someone through it, but... hey big surprise, no takers willing to be guinea pigs for that case study.  

Ultimately, they want me to accept that because they're not willing to cooperate with the case study they themselves want me to implement, God can't be real.  


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:let's start a real

Quote:
let's start a real conversation then.... if you're up for it

You really like banging your head against the wall don't you?

We have already had this conversation, and YES it is one sided, because YOU have absolutely nothing to show for all your convoluted claptrap.

Here is how reality goes, despite your wishful delusion.

Claimant, "I claim x is true"

WHATEVER THE FUCKING CLAIM IS

IT IS UP TO THEM TO PROVE THE CLAIM THEY MAKE BY UNIVERSAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD

OTHERWISE IT IS MERELY YOUR MENTAL MASTURBATION

There, there is the adult conversation you don't want to have.

YOU dont want to do that because you know you cannot do that. It is all in your head and you simply refuse to accept reality.

Simple enough? Or do I need to draw you a coloring book and hand you crayons?

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Actually it

TGBaker wrote:

Actually it shows the basis of information for the proposition that Jesus is the Christ is suspect.

Quote:

Then all historical writings from that time would have to be just as suspect due to similar discrepancies. 

TGBaker wrote:

The discrepancies in turn can be analyzed for motivation.

they can be, but does that necessarily mean they were solely motivation for a stretch?  It is generally understood throughout scripture Old and new along with other completely unrelated texts that the general knowledge of history and exact time/date was minimal and actually was subject to a particular people group.  

TGBaker wrote:

For example John changing the time reflected in Matthew so that Jesus's death would coincide with the slaughter of the lambs. This in turn is to build the theological theme that jesus is the Passover Lamb and proposing that Jesus is a sacrifice for sin.  They are often minor but are cumulative and add up to significance.For example looking at the various re-workings of Mark by matthew and Luke shows that they had an agenda to overcome the idea that jesus was a disciple of John the baptist, to create an apology for why he would have been baptised for the remission of sin, and to subordinate the Baptist to Jesus as a precursor. Looking at the way matthew handles various texts you can see the elimination of normal human behavior from mark's presentation to a more  supernatural figure. Why do you call Me good when there is none good but God is reworked to Why do you ask me about the good. On and on and so forth...additions of to methods to make Jesus virgin born is another whole agenda that has to do with analysing exactly how the texts were composed and what the authors are up to.  I think as Gunther Bornkamm said there is a brim full of history in the texts but geting to it and seeing what the history is is another matter.

I see what you're saying but to support that reasoning, you'll need more than just a hunch.  Sure it's possible that this was an agenda to make people believe something that didn't happen, but then again, it very well could have been written as they knew it without such an agenda in mind.  That agenda is more likely if they all knew each other personally and had monthly meetings to compile their stories appropriately.  


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Sure it's possible

Quote:
Sure it's possible that this was an agenda to make people believe something that didn't happen

BINGO! NOW YOU ARE ON TO SOMETHING!

NOT ONLY IS IT POSSIBLE, IT MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE THAN A DISEMBODIED BRAIN WITH NO BRAIN!

You want to believe something badly enough, not only will you believe it, you will do everything within your power to market it. You can sell shit as ice cream if you get gullible people to buy it.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Actually it shows the basis of information for the proposition that Jesus is the Christ is suspect.

Quote:

Then all historical writings from that time would have to be just as suspect due to similar discrepancies. 

TGBaker wrote:

The discrepancies in turn can be analyzed for motivation.

they can be, but does that necessarily mean they were solely motivation for a stretch?  It is generally understood throughout scripture Old and new along with other completely unrelated texts that the general knowledge of history and exact time/date was minimal and actually was subject to a particular people group.  

TGBaker wrote:

For example John changing the time reflected in Matthew so that Jesus's death would coincide with the slaughter of the lambs. This in turn is to build the theological theme that jesus is the Passover Lamb and proposing that Jesus is a sacrifice for sin.  They are often minor but are cumulative and add up to significance.For example looking at the various re-workings of Mark by matthew and Luke shows that they had an agenda to overcome the idea that jesus was a disciple of John the baptist, to create an apology for why he would have been baptised for the remission of sin, and to subordinate the Baptist to Jesus as a precursor. Looking at the way matthew handles various texts you can see the elimination of normal human behavior from mark's presentation to a more  supernatural figure. Why do you call Me good when there is none good but God is reworked to Why do you ask me about the good. On and on and so forth...additions of to methods to make Jesus virgin born is another whole agenda that has to do with analysing exactly how the texts were composed and what the authors are up to.  I think as Gunther Bornkamm said there is a brim full of history in the texts but geting to it and seeing what the history is is another matter.

I see what you're saying but to support that reasoning, you'll need more than just a hunch.  Sure it's possible that this was an agenda to make people believe something that didn't happen, but then again, it very well could have been written as they knew it without such an agenda in mind.  That agenda is more likely if they all knew each other personally and had monthly meetings to compile their stories appropriately.  

 

What I am saying is that it is more than a hunch. You can see the movement through the textual changes and what those changes mean.  And indeed an author may have believed certain things that were already changed through an oral transmission.  Nevertheless the changes are quite readily available by comparing the texts and seeing what the differing propositions mean. You can not say that all of the New Testament writers wrote as they knew it because some changes DO reflect an agenda in mind. It is unlikely that they all knew each other personally because of the significance of the disagreements.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:caposkia

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

...discrepancies in dates and times are typical for scripts from this time and earlier.  

Tell it to the judge.

I've talked to many... they agree

redneF wrote:

Look, they weren't even capable of getting their stories straight, even back then.

nothing contradicts.  AT least that's been pointed out to me yet.

redneF wrote:

You are in no position to 'fill in gaps' with speculations, or 'fill in gaps' with claims of knowing anything that you were not witness to personally.

You simply cannot.

neither can you.  What gaps am I supposedly filling in?  I'm only diffusing any possible claim at an atheist "filling in the gaps" to say that this didn't happen in history.

redneF wrote:

That's why investigators and scientists spent so much time and resources to go to the bottom of the ocean to survey the remains of the Titanic. The 'evidence' is there, but they are many gaps that they will never be able to bridge.

right, so plausibility and theory is left... yet a good chunk of the non-believing world accept plausibility as fact.

redneF wrote:

Same with 9/11.

They have video, they have survellience footage, they have cockpit voice recorders, they have phone messages, they have eye witnesses, they had rubble and debris.

And there is still uncertainty, on major points of what actually occurred, despite the level of forensic analysis, and mountains of records, and data, eye witness accounts, testimony of actual survivors, and physical evidence.

and yet we know it still happened.  The question is what's really important, the details, or the fact that it happened?  Think about it, if it didn't happen, then the details don't matter.

redneF wrote:

That makes what's written in 2000 yr old legends, even more anecdotal, and less likely to be factual, even if they weren't simply fiction to begin with.

so... because we still have uncertainty on major points of something that we know actually happened, that makes the Bible stories LESS factual????? how so.  to me that makes it more plausible because it confirms the difficulty at getting all the facts strait with major events... especially without the aid of immediate newsfeeds of the happenings.

redneF wrote:

There's no logical reason to assume these anecdotal legends are any more authentic than the legends of other religions, that are incompatible with the religion you are biased towards.

There's no logical reason to assume they're not any more authentic either... but to discuss the authenticity of my God, we'd have to come to an agreement first about the existence of a metaphysical being to begin with.  

redneF wrote:

You, and you people are not willing to be honest about it, but you cannot escape from the reality that you don't know a single damn thing for sure .

That's the reality.

neither do you, but it's the atheists on this forum that are the only ones claiming they do.  i have admitted this many times over on this forum.  I'm waiting for someone to show me why i shouldn't believe.  Telling me; "you don't know a single damn thing for sure." "you're delusional"  "you only wish your God was real" is not going to convince me that what i know is true really isn't.  Would it convince you if I said it?

redneF wrote:

This is not even up for 'interpretation'.

You were not there, so there's no possible way you can claim you have any 'facts'. You couldn't possibly be in a position to certify that a bunch of 2000 yr old notes, written many years after what is alleged.

and likewise you were not there, so there's no possible way you can claim you have any 'facts'.  You couldn't possibly be in a position to certify that a bunch of 2000 yr. old notes were not legit.  

redneF wrote:

You were not there at the time.

What would be honest for you to say, is;  " I don't know, I wasn't there"

I'll admit that, but I have reason to believe... that's what's in question.  You have reason not to believe.  We should share our reasoning, not excuses as to why either of us can't say for sure.

Question... would you likewise admit this?

redneF wrote:

Because, you're no different than anyone else. They weren't there either.

You have no basis to posture as an authority, over any one else.

Thank you for those humbling words... if i ever claim that I do, i will reflect back to this moment and remind myself that I am out of my place.  So far, I haven't done so.  

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I hold to the point that discrepancies like these don't change the context or meaning or purpose of the story.  

That's moot.

It doesn't matter.

You were not there, therefore this could be entirely fictional, and you would never know.

right, but so is your case moot then.  What reasoning do you have otherwise?

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
... pick any one from Biblical times and we can analyze them.

What's the point of the exercise?

It doesn't change the fact that without having been there, you could never be certain that it wasn't entirely fictional.

of course it doesn't... but it seems you desperately want to prove to me that my God really isn't there, so I'm willing to take whatever angle you want with it so you can show me your reasoning.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I admitted to wanting to work with you and USE the scientific method in the process. 

Well, give us something to test, Einstein.

Your willingness, is meaningless.

Your inability to provide physical evidence is your handicap.

Your handicap forces science into a 'standby'.

We're still waiting.................................................................................................................

 

There's no physical evidence, to examine scientifically.

ah!!!!! GENIUS!!! Finally someone was able to clarify what I've been trying to say this whole time since the beginning of the scientific challenges to prove God... though I'm pretty sure I've said that quote myself from time to time... but anyway.

So then this leads to the question... if a testable repeatable method is needed to prove to someone the existence of God, how do you go about it?... of course assuming God is real.  

redneF wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
We discussed this, you coward into a corner. 

Ummmm, hypocrite much?

not at all, I have faced every challenge... and I will shut down every challenge that doesn't make logical sense... like getting God DNA... god or not it just can't be done with the abilities we currently have.

oh wait... you're claiming I have coward into a corner... please reference to where.  I would like a specific post number so i can review it and either apologize and face it or explain my intentions.

redneF wrote:

What forensic evidence do you have?

now who's being hypocritical?  didn't you just say there's no physical evidence?  isn't forensics based on physical evidence?

redneF wrote:

 

Are you people hiding it?

as much as you're hiding the physical evidence that God's a made up concept.

redneF wrote:

Ummm, yes, actually, you are.

You are asking to demostrate that your lack of evidence is sufficient/insufficient to prove/disprove your story, that you got from 2000 yr old urban legends.

That's absurd.

OF COURSE IT IS!!! if uh... that's what I was asking of you.  No, I've been given challenges of executing case studies or processes using the scientific method.  In order to properly execute them I would need specific details about what is expected.  Ask any scientist who would propose a study.  They would never say; "give me X' and walk away.  They would write up a multi-page proposal detailing the expected methodology, theories processes and tools expected to use.  Then a team of scientists would sit down and analyze the proposal, they'd send it back with any question or improbabilities for correction by the proposer, then once all the details are ironed out, they would implement the study.  

It seems that on here everyone wants to skip the formalities and... well, drop the ball.  Therefore, I cannot continue.  If you're going to give me a challenge, you need to do your homework before I can do mine.  Otherwise, don't bother proposing it.  

redneF wrote:

You could invent extraordinary claims that exact way, all day long, and you'd be no further ahead, in proving their veracity.

Like, that you were abducted by aliens last night, and elected their leader.

You would like it, if others would accept that to be the 'truth' based on 'face value'.

Ummmm.....reality doesn't work that way.

finally a non-believer gets it!  I've been trying to say this for many pages now.   it's usually the type of case that keeps getting sent my way.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...but when you make statements such as 'your God is not real'. you're going to need to back up that claim with reasoning

Ummmm, hypocrite much?

It's 100% sound to say that a god is not real, just as it is for you to say that the gods of other religions are not real.

I said that?  Please reference the post number.  If I remember correctly, I've said it's plausible and went into a possible explanation of who those other gods could have been or could be.

Something tells me you're very hypocritical getting on me about not doing my homework and you failed to look into my point of view before making assumptions about what you think or wish I claimed.

redneF wrote:

 

You are not more equal than others.

you mean to say... I'm less equal?!  oh man. who knew!

redneF wrote:

You are not entitled to a double standard, or to arbitrarily overrule other people's personal experiences based on your personal experiences, and opinions.

neither are you so why do you try to take that stance?

redneF wrote:

You see no evidence of their gods, we see no evidence of yours.

Tit for Tat.

again, did I say that?  Can you ask me about my stance before assuming?  I have expressed the likelihood of their existence in one form or another.  Not even scripture denies the existence of other gods, only that the Judeo-Christian God is the God of gods and Lord of lords.  Above all other Gods.  Then we'd have to make a case as to how or why, but one thing at a time.

redneF wrote:

Deal with it.

I am, that's why i'm still here.. can you handle it?

redneF wrote:

 

Under no circumstances, would I let someone get in my face, and lecture me that I didn't know what I was talking about, when I say I've never seen any gods.

So, running your mouth at me here, is just posturing.

not at all, I'm just asking for your reasoning and a civil discussion.  I'm sorry if I came across that way.

redneF wrote:

Don't waste your time, or mine, with that BS.

I've given you sound, logical, rational reasons for both why you are in no position, to arbitrarily decide what is real, and what is not, and for how to be able to rectify that deficit position.

 

I know, and all i asked you is to share with me your reasoning for not believing... so you failed to address my request and ignored the point.  

redneF wrote:

One of the best definitions of insanity is doing the exact same thing, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over...... and expecting a different result.

 

You people have been at it for hundreds of years.

You're certifiable insane.

 

I've only followed the leads of others on this forum.  by your case, if you look back on this forum, you'll notice that it is the non-believers doing that, not me.  I've asked for progress.  Anyone who has heeded my request for progress ended up starting a new forum with me to get away from the redundancy irrational detours on this forum.

Nice try though.  Seems you took very little effort to put forth this post and I commend you for being consistent with the progress of this forum.  Now if you'd like to discuss details or challenge me to a case study, I'd appreciate you sticking to your guns and progressing with me on it.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:What I am

TGBaker wrote:

What I am saying is that it is more than a hunch. You can see the movement through the textual changes and what those changes mean.  And indeed an author may have believed certain things that were already changed through an oral transmission.  Nevertheless the changes are quite readily available by comparing the texts and seeing what the differing propositions mean. You can not say that all of the New Testament writers wrote as they knew it because some changes DO reflect an agenda in mind. It is unlikely that they all knew each other personally because of the significance of the disagreements.

...which according to some scholars would only further support its likelihood and not the other way around.  Disagreements from different sources on minor details about a major event are common and further validate that something of significance on the lines of the gist of the story actually happened.